batmagadanleadoff

=Ceetar post_id=36953 time=1589743072 user_id=102] And also why did this need to take place in the early 20th century? Joaquin Phoenix is 45. I don't know what age Joker was supposed to be but that seems about right. That means Joker, in the future when Batman is Batman, is like a 60ish year old man? That doesn't really seem to track.

Vic Sage wrote: Double Switch wrote: Would you tell me where those numbers come from? i found a website that ranked all of Kurosawa's films as an aggregate of IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. Then i seeded them in each bracket accordingly, with slight tweaks based on my own assessments. Apropos of the big Kurosawa discussion here a few months ago, TCM is running a 24 hour Kurosawa extravaganza beginning this Wednesday at 6AM. Wall to wall Kurosawa.

I pretty much agree with everything youse said ahead of me. I saw this movie in the theaters last Summer. It was right around the time that I got my idea to make those Batman Mets cards I've been sprinkling the forum with over the past few months. And I was very pleasantly surprised when Neal Hefti's Batman theme played over the closing credits, followed by an LA radio commercial for the Batman Batphone Secret Number contest. The whole experience gave me the idea for a Batman card -- that I haven't posted yet. I think that my favorite part of the movie was all of the memorabilia, paraphenalia, I dunno what to call it -- Easter Eggs? -- appearing throughout the movie. Like the mock Mad Magazine cover of Bounty Law, illustrated by Tom Richmond in the style of Jack Davis. I thought the mock Mad cover was historically inaccurate in that in the fictional universe Tarantino created for OUaTiH, Bounty Law aired in the late 50s through the early 60s and Mad Magazine had not yet began to parody TV shows on its cover. But I nitpick. I loved that Mad cover. And the mock TV Guide. I love old TV Guides. And old those old movie posters, some of them created specifically for the movie. [FIMG=777]https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/KM1J6y6CmAnZHAMJ5tzb0_E42Cs=/1440x0/smart/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/RF6ZS4VZNMI6TDUDJZTIP2MYCQ.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=777]https://i2.wp.com/www.tomrichmond.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Blu-Ray-Booklet.jpeg?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=1[/FIMG] So I bring all of this up more than half a year after OUaTiH premiered in theaters because yesterday, apparently, the movie made its cable TV debut. And so I watched it, more than anything else, to watch the Batman bits over the closing credits, which I was eagerly anticipating throughout the movie. Which brings me to a pet peeve of mine that's been simmering for a few years now in my head but exploded yesterday. It's the recent trend in how cable TV butchers the closing credits. They play commercials and coming attractions over the closing credits, sometimes shrinking the credits to a quarter or even an eighth of the screen. I never liked it because if I'm watching a movie that I found interesting, I almost always stay for the entire run of the closing credits. Right down to the catering companies and the liability insurers and the statement that no animals were harmed in the making of that movie. So I watched in complete disgust as I got about a five second teaser of the Batman theme, only for the sound to totally fade out to make way for a cable tv coming attraction. I don't even understand why the movies allow this? The credits are a part of the movie and often, the credits are creative and artistic. Anyways, end of rant.

So then why haven't past foreign movies competed in the main best movie category, for the most part? New trend?

So I've been scouring the internet for an answer and coming up empty. How does Parasite win the Oscar for best movie? Isn't it a foreign movie? Why wasnt it placed in the foreign movie category?

Here's an oddity: "Charade" is in the public domain and has been since its initial premiere release. The film's makers forgot to put the copyright symbol on the film's print'', required under copyright law back then and so there's no copyright on the movie.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: How could they screw that detail up?!? I may be remembering FBGs as KYA... I just remember it totally didn't sit well with me and every moment after that I met with complete cyncism. I'm totally with you on this. I could see how others might think it's a minor screw-up, but for me, it was a major gaffe and it lingered with me in the back of my head throughout the rest of the movie. Also, I can't see how this is some "screw-up" as if a mistake was made. Like the band members didn't realize when FBG was recorded or that the fact checkers didn't research every song used in the movie? This was intentional.

Also, in the movie, the band is shown playing Fat Bottomed Girls early on, before Bohemian Rhapsody was ever recorded. This was an annoying screwup as FBG was recorded in 1978 for the Jazz album, a coupl'a albums after Bohemian Rhapsody. I don't consider this error to be trivial. How'd you like to see a Beatles movie where they're depicted playing A Day in the Life on their first Ed Sullivan show appearance? Here's one not many people would know about and I haven't found a mention of it on the internet. It's a minor gaffe, but one that I happen to know. The movie depicts Queen playing at Madison Square Garden and performing We Will Rock You/We are the Champions on their News of the World Tour. In real life, when Freddie Mercury was about to sing We are the Champions, a stage hand walked out on stage to hand Mercury a satin New York Yankees jacket, which Mercury then donned. This didn't happen in the movie. I happen to know this annoying detail because I was at that concert -- (Orchestra seats, about 15 rows from the stage).

Vic Sage wrote: Vic Sage wrote: I can't find my Hitchcock essay in the archives. oh well. another moment lost, like tears in rain. i found it! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paramount: - "Blondes make the best victims. They're like virgin snow that shows up the bloody footprints." Hitch did 5 films with Paramount, which were all given a theatrical re-release back in the 1980s, before being distributed in the newly burgeoning home video market. 2 of these were two of his very best films, REAR WINDOW and VERTIGO, both with Jimmy Stewart at his most sexually disturbing and obsessed, verging on sado-masochistic. * Rear Window (1954) (AA nom/director) - Stewart & Kelly; darkly funny, disturbing rumination on voyeurism * To Catch a Thief (1955) - Kelly and Grant in light romantic thriller; urbane sophisticated entertainment. Kelly went on to become Princess Grace after the film * The Trouble with Harry (1955) - black comedy about a dead body, with a cute young Shirley McLaine; silly, pointless * The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) - Doris Day sings "Que Sera, Sera" -- a ridiculous remake * Vertigo (1958) - my favorite cool blonde, Kim Novak, totally fetishized by Stewart (and Hitch). One of the greatest films ever made * North by Northwest (1959) - Grant and E.M.Saint, "wrong man", black comedy, Freudian sexual hysteria, thrilling climax on national monument, the crop duster... its Hitch at his absolute best * Psycho (1960) (AA nom/director) - Hitch crossed the line from suspense to pure horror (depending on your definition), reinventing the genre and making a fortune for his efforts... he waived his salary to take 60% of net profits when he produced it as an indie (nobody wanted to touch the project), but eventually distributed by Paramount I know how much you like Vertigo. If you don't already know, it recently replaced Citizen Kane as The British Film Institute's best movie of all time. Me, I'm a Psycho guy. Heard of 78/52? When the latest British Film Institute greatest-films-of-all-time poll came out a few years ago, it wasn't terribly surprising that an Alfred Hitchcock film had displaced “Citizen Kane,” which had occupied the top spot for several decades. But why “Vertigo”? If the importance of Orson Welles' classic had stemmed from the common view that it launched sound-era auteur cinema (especially in its influence on the young critics who would become the auteurs of the French New Wave), surely the Hitchcock film that had a similar game-changing impact was “Psycho.” That thought may well cross the minds of viewers of “78/52,” which, in providing a detailed analysis of the shower scene in Hitchcock's horror milestone, makes a persuasive case for “Psycho” as the film that jump-started modern cinema, not just in its startling fusion of sex and violence (which anticipated much about the ‘60s, off-screen as well as on) but also in a revolutionary use of film technique that would galvanize audiences and inspire filmmakers for decades to come. While Alexandre O. Philippe's film is essentially a big geek-out for cine-obsessives, it's one that makes you realize that “Psycho” is not the property of a coterie. That shower scene may be the best-known movie sequence in modern cinema. Endlessly imitated and parodied (and even remade shot-by-shot by Gus Van Sant), it's familiar material even to many casual movie fans as well as filmgoers generations removed from its shocking advent. That familiarity means that many viewers of “78/52” (the title refers to the three-minute scene's 78 camera set-ups and 52 cuts) will begin the film realizing they already know a lot about what's being discussed. The virtue of Philippe's approach is that it organizes an intelligent, analytic discussion that expands and deepens our knowledge by drawing upon commentary from the likes of Walter Murch, Peter Bogdanovich, Bret Easton Ellis, Eli Roth, Danny Elfman, Jamie Lee Curtis, Guillermo del Toro and others, plus vintage TV clips of Hitchcock interviews. Some of the most fascinating testimony comes from Marli Renfro, a model (and sometime Playboy Bunny) who served as Janet Leigh's body double in the shower scene. She recalls the scene's lengthy shooting, in which she was topless and offered to remove the “crotch patch” she wore; Hitchcock declined. Starting out, the film makes the point that the low-budget, black-and-white “Psycho” was a deliberate antithesis to the big, glossy, Technicolor star vehicles (such as “North by Northwest,” “Vertigo” and “Rear Window”) that made the 1950s Hitchcock's most successful decade so far. For this viewer, though, one of the most thought-provoking bits of contextualizing here comes in connecting the movie's theme of invaded spaces and unexpected attacks to the warnings that Hitchcock provided in films like “Foreign Correspondent” and “Lifeboat” of what he saw as the U.K. and U.S.' lack of preparedness for World War II. Although Philippe gives surprisingly little attention to how Hitchcock's popular TV show influenced “Psycho,” he does note that when the movie was done, Hitchcock considered it such a flop that he considered editing it down to an hour and using it on TV. Composer Bernard Hermann convinced him to do otherwise, and gave him the legendary score that helped the shower scene elicits screams from coast to coast. Peter Bogdanovich recalls emerging from the movie's first showing in New York feeling that he'd been “raped.” Shot in black and white and generous in its use of clips from “Psycho” and other movies, “78/52” looks at virtually every aspect of the shower scene—including the staging, the production design, the music and sound effects, the camera work, Saul Bass' storyboards, etc.—and marvels at how brilliantly integrated they were. The word “genius” is heard more than once, and the more the film shows us, the less even hardened skeptics will be likely to demur. Some of the most fascinating bits concern details in “Psycho,” showing how even minor design elements in the movie contribute to its overall tapestry of meaning and emotion. There's a discussion of the floral wallpaper in the Bates Motel, and a detailed analysis of why the Dutch painting of “Susannah and the Elders” that covers Norman Bates' peephole was the perfect rendition to connect the Biblical theme to Norman's state of mind. Philippe's interviewees also pay ample tribute to the subtle modulations in Anthony Perkins' brilliant and haunting performance as Norman. No one, though, wonders if his casting might have had something to do his status as a closeted gay man whose biography contained a dead father and domineering mother (similar casting questions of course could be asked of other Hitchcock films including “Rope” and “Strangers on a Train”). Perhaps unsurprisingly, there are no interviewees here who question the value of “Psycho” or its impact on the culture. That's because it's basically a fan's film, of course. But it's also testament to the power and mastery of a movie that, nearly 60 years on, still feels as modern, complex and cutting-edge as any film released in 2017. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/7852-2017https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/7852-2017 https://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/movie/movie_poster/7852-2017/large_MV5BMTg2NjMzMDAxMl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDkxOTY0MzI_._V1_SY1000_CR0_0_676_1000_AL_.jpg> [YOUTUBE]rNHwKKdirxo[/YOUTUBE]

Hard to answer because "Fiddler", whether in story, on film or in theater, has been given different endings. Also, who is "the fellow?'

Vic Sage wrote: I give it two and one-half stars (Felix Millan) **1/2 Its like 5 movies crammed into one. But at least 3 of those movies are pretty good. Still, Marty and Thelma should've considered editing the film. Most directors try to do that. Jeez. And Millan's not even Irish. I'm guessing it was three and a half hours long because the movie's being marketed mainly to bring in new Netflix subscribers - not neccessarily to make the bucks at the box office. When you're watching at home, you can take as many bathroom or food breaks as you want without worrying about missing any of the movie.

Saw The Irishman last week in a movie theater -- that was about 2/3 empty. So much for not wanting to see this on account of the crowds. The movie clocks in at just under three and a half hours -- and there's no intermission. No problem for me. This one was so good, I would've sat through it if it was six hours long. Cut from the same cloth as GoodFellas and Casino -- only the violence is understated: Doesn't have to be over the top because you know it's always lurking and might pop up at any time. This is the move De Niro should've been making instead of those trite comedies he's been dabbling in for the past few decades. But don't listen to me. Like youse ever do, anyways. Read one or two of the hundred or so reviews out there. I give it FOUR STARS (Bing Crosby) **** not THREE STARS (Daniel Murphy) *** or TWO STARS (Kevin McReynolds) ** or ONE STAR (Charlie O'Brien) * or ZERO STARS (Eric O'Flaherty)

=LWFS post_id=25208 time=1572064347 user_id=84] You don't want to watch Irishman on bootleg, friendo.

I had lunch at Burger King the other day. I'm trying to cut down on this type of fast food meal and as a result, I think that I've eaten fast food burgers just twice in the past six months. If I'm going to have a fast food burger, I'd prefer Shake Shack or Five Guys -- and out of the major national chains, I guess I'd prefer McDonald's over BK. But it was Burger King the other day. And it wasn't that I just happened to be around a Burger King and decided spontaneously to go for the Whopper that takes two hands to handle. No, I planned this lunch. It was on my mind for a few days. So why am I posting this in this here thread about The Irishman? Because I'm jonesing to see the movie. I've been anticipating it for about a year, now. Earlier this year, I even read the book upon which the movie's based -- I Heard You Paint Houses. There's a Burger King near me -- about a 10 minute drive away -- not really walkable. And occasionally, there's this Asian woman that'll make her rounds at that BK, selling perfect quality bootleg DVD's of movies currently in theaters or recent releases that haven't yet made their way to cable TV and the regular DVD market. So I was hoping that she'd be there and that she'd have a copy of The Irishman. She was a no-show. But I waited in vain there for about 45 minutes -- about 10 minutes to eat my food and about a half hour or so killing time surfing the web on my smartphone. And BTW, BK's whoppers definitely got smaller. The bun is about the same size, but the burger is no doubt about it smaller. I really didn't mind because the burger is goddamn awful and if I ever had to eat it without the ketchup and tomato and onions and pickles and cheese that BK puts on it, I might puke before the first bite even settles in my stomach. But it did make for a very odd and unsatisfying burger to bun ratio.

Reminds me of the old days, the very old days, the days way way way before the internet -- when a Robert de Niro movie was a major event -- and I'd learn as much about the movie as I possibly could before its release. It's been ages, like a generation.

Vic Sage wrote: Shop on the corner Good catch. Technically the Shop Around the Corner -- but you were far closer than I! https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033045/https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033045/ It was just on tv the other night. I had never seen it, and when I read the description of the movie, I immediately though of You've Got Mail. Later The other night? It seems as if this movie airs at least once a week.

Double Switch wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: I haven't seen many DD films either, although I'm not sure that NOT watching them constitutes a sheltered childhood. In fact, one could argue that it's kind of the opposite. There's an old joke concerning Doris and the studio-created chaste image that served her for many roles and many years. I can't remember now to whom it was first attributed, but whoever it was claimed that; 'I knew Doris Day before she was a virgin'. Supposedly Oscar Levant said that, which sounds exactly like something he'd have said. Similar to the jibe toward George Gershwin and his long-time love, Kay Swift, whom he never married before he died: "Ah, look! Here comes George Gershwin with the future Miss Kay Swift." OK, a "sheltered childhood" means, in my case, we didn't have movie options for a lot of my childhood but when we did, it was movies my mother wanted to see. She was not a DD fan. She was not into chick flicks. She tended toward movies such as Mister Roberts, Trapeze, The Greatest Show on Earth, Around the World in 80 Days, The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming; Auntie Mame, stuff like that. So that shelter meant if I was to see a movie, mom wanted to see it and took us kids along. We had no nearby theatre to trot off to. Sometimes I speak circumspectly. That before she was a virgin line is attributed to Levant, and also, Groucho Marx.

About two weeks ago, me and a friend had like a 10 or 15 minute conversation about this movie. I like that you started a thread about an "old" movie. I wish youse all would do this more often.

Vic Sage wrote: Some bad and unnecessary 21st century remakes of great movies: BEDAZZLED (00) SHAFT (00) PLANET OF THE APES (01) ROLLERBALL (02) MR. DEEDS (02) THE IN-LAWS (03) THE LADYKILLERS (04) MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (04) ALFIE (04) LONGEST YARD (05) BAD NEWS BEARS (05) CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY (05) THE PRODUCERS (05) THE WICKER MAN (06) ALL THE KINGS MEN (06) THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (08) THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 (09) FAME (09) THE KARATE KID (10) ARTHUR (11) CONAN (11) STRAW DOGS (11) THE LONE RANGER (13) SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY (13) CARRIE (13) ROBOCOP (14) POLTERGEIST (15) BEN-HUR (16) MAGNIFICENT 7 (16) DEATH WISH (17) I was about to write that I must have great taste because I haven't seen a single one of these movies. But I just remembered that I gave The Ladykillers a shot, mainly because I can't watch a British movie that isn't subtitled. British is like a foreign language to me. It might as well be Swahili to me.

themetfairy wrote: Beautiful scoreboard. Not like the Mets.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: No matter what you may have heard, the Primanti Brothers sandwiches with the soggy french fries are awful! Get something else instead! This isn't gonna be a PNC Park post, since I've never been there. It's on my list, though. It's not even a Pittsburgh post. It's a Florida post. And it's a Primanti's follow-up post, which is integral to the Pittsburgh baseball experience, I suppose. So I've always been intrigued by the Primanti offerings. They're always appearing on some foodie show or other and billed as a fast-food/comfort food destination eating experience that's so tasty, it's worth any length of travel. It's part of Pittsburgh's history, enjoyed by generations. On the one hand, I was always skeptical because the stuff, you know, the overloaded sandwiches drenched in french fries and everything else but the kitchen sink looked like total dreck to me -- a real crapfest. I couldn't imagine how those sandwiches could be tasty. But on the other hand, 50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong, I suppose, even if they never ate at Primanti's. Anyways, a few years ago, I finally got to try me some when I was in Florida and discovered that there was a Primanti's in Fort Lauderdale. What a mistake. As I suspected. No kidding .. this was about as bad an eating out meal as I ever had that I can remember. I ordered pretty quickly, but after our orders were placed, and I began getting acclimated to the place and looked around at what everyone else was eating and what was going on behind the counters, I realized before my food would be served that this place sucked. Crappy meats, and pizzas that looked worse than the worst supermarket frozen pizzas. I thought the place was white trash heaven. And as expected and like I said, the food sucked so bad, I only ate most of it. So I still don't get the wild over the top enthusiasm for this joint, and now I can say it from experience. The only possible excuse I can come up with is that maybe the F.Laud location is not representative of the Pittsburgh joints.

metsmarathon wrote: has ever a better batman movie been made? The complete movie: 0dXsaLLuEcM The trailer: 4p69TvnwTaw A serious review: wxEHwIyQEGE

Edgy MD wrote: At the same time, Sheriff Bart was originally intended to be Richard Pryor. It ended up being Pryor who advocated for Cleavon Little, who was always a ham. In Start the Revolution Without Me, he and Donald Sutherland got to be part of two comic pairings, as both played two roles. If we had to make lists of Hollywood people that we thought were gonna break big but didn't, Cleavon Little might be at or near the top of my list.

That happens with a lot of movies. The "official" year of a film, for Oscar purposes, is based on when the movie opens in Los Angeles. But some movies open outside of L.A. in the previous year. I don't know if that's the case with The Producers, but it could be. EDIT: Oops, Vic's post snuck in ahead of mine. I didn't know about that L.A. wrinkle in the rule. I didn't know that it mattered where in the US the film opened for Oscar purposes. Now I do.

That "first" Waco Kid was Gig Young. Nice write-up.